Milt Priggee is a freelance editorial cartoonist from northwest Washington State. His work has been reprinted in Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, The New York Times, Washington Post and USA Today.

Even if Hillary Clinton was trying to stay out of the headlines, she'd still be in the headlines. While the furor surrounding the non-endorsement of Bernie Sanders was dying down, the news broke that would-be presidential nominee Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) is suing the has-been presidential nominee for slander, in response to Clinton's suggestion that Gabbard is being groomed as a Russian asset.

It is very hard to win libel/slander suits, and it's even harder to win them if you're a public figure. There's no way Gabbard could plausibly win this case (or the $50 million she's suing for). First of all, the ever-wily Clinton didn't actually name the Representative by name. That would put Gabbard in the position of arguing that of course she was the target of those remarks, because what other female presidential candidate could plausibly be described as a potential Russian asset? In other words, for Gabbard to make her case, she'd effectively have to concede the original verbiage was only plausible as a description of herself, thus shooting her case right in the foot. In effect, Clinton was using a version of the small penis rule (and yes, that's a real thing). On top of that, Gabbard would have to prove not only that Clinton was spreading a falsehood, but that she did so knowingly and maliciously. Since there is some evidence to support the claim (remember, Gabbard need not be "in the know" to be groomed), Clinton could say she had a good-faith belief that her words were truthful.

The case is so weak, in fact, that it surely won't get to trial. Either Gabbard will find some reason not to move forward, or a judge will dismiss it. But winning, of course, is not the goal, publicity is. Some outlets think that Gabbard was looking for some much-needed attention for her presidential campaign heading into the Iowa caucuses. That's dubious, though; suing your party's most recent nominee, one who collected the votes of 63 million people, is hardly a way to gain traction with your party's voters. This is probably another phase of Gabbard's audition for a future job with Fox News. After all, a Democrat who sometimes sounds a lot like a Republican is right up their alley (see, for example, David Clarke). If such a person is a noted nemesis of Hillary Clinton, who is much-despised by most Fox viewers, all the better.

The Small Penis Rule

The small penis rule is an informal strategy used by authors to evade libel lawsuits. It was described in a New York Times article in 1998:

"For a fictional portrait to be actionable, it must be so accurate that a reader of the book would have no problem linking the two," said Mr. Friedman. Thus, he continued, libel lawyers have what is known as "the small penis rule". One way authors can protect themselves from libel suits is to say that a character has a small penis, Mr. Friedman said. "Now no male is going to come forward and say, 'That character with a very small penis, that's me!'"

The small penis rule was referenced in a 2006 dispute between Michael Crowley and Michael Crichton. Crowley alleged that after he wrote an unflattering review of Crichton's novel State of Fear, Crichton included a character named "Mick Crowley" in the novel Next. The character is a child rapist, described as being a Washington, D.C.-based journalist and Yale graduate with a small penis.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum